An appellant said in his grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which he was convicted of robbery had insufficient evidence of causation. He said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of the testimony of the first convicted person though it included contradictions.

The court of cassation said that this argument was valid. The court said that the documents of the case revealed that the testimony of the first convicted person included many contradictions. The court said that the first convicted person's claim that the appellant stole the car under consideration was irrelevant. The court said that the court established its ruling on the grounds of solid evidence.

The court repealed the ruling.